What's wrong with evolution?

[Everlasting33]

When i observe the complexity of the human body and the diversity of animal/plant life, I see a creation.

I know you've heard this before and its cliche, but really--ifs its an INTELLIGENT design, how could i believe it just happened to be that way? I may not be the brightest person when it comes to physics or science, but i know that all the inventions of mankind were brought into existance by intelligence, not randomness(there is a mastermind behind it all).

*Those are my thoughts...I understand with this type of debate, its highly unlikely my opinions will be agreed upon but i still would like to take that risk that it may happen one day!

 

[USincognito]

The question is how intelligent is the design. There are myriad examples of how life appears to be jerry rigged, not optimally designed. If the designer if more of a tinkerer, then progressive creationism - an offshoot of theistic evolution would be a more tenable than Creationism.

 

[Everlasting33]

^^Yes there are mishaps, like with anything and everything in life, but overall i believe the intelligence argument is a good and valid one.

 

[DailyBlessings]

It is a fairly good philosophical argument, but it has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, which does not preclude intelligent design. In fact, evolution hints at a universe with a natural tendency for organization, which could itself be considered an argument for a designer.

 

[Gottservant]

The thing that is wrong with evolution as a theory is that it pheasibly predicts that you will have descendants that are exact copies of your parents, that over time copies will gain an evolutionary advantage (they can share learning more easily) and that because members of a species can do little more than mutate or react, the copies will simply be compelled to see this as a good thing or diverge against the telos of the evolutionary cycle and fall foul of those who do not.

When you add to these expectations the recognized fact that man has fallen in sin (man killed Christ when he needed not have) you have a cocktail for lawlessness and perpetual degradation (in my experience much abuse is levelled at others, even on these humble forums, on the basis of that evil theory). Were it not for the fact that Christ was Divinely conceived, evolution would postulate that the murder of Christ would simply happen again and again until the Holy Spirit rejected mankind. Being Divinely conceived, while knowing the nature of God, it is only thanks to God that we know that this will not happen.

Christ came once to save mankind from sin once and for all. No theory can predict otherwise; that evolution does predict this, asserting that the causes for life are perpetual, shows that evolution is patently wrong. Christ will not be born in the flesh again, He already has eternal life! Praise be to God that this simple fact points out the error in evolution that we may live without the slander against us and our ancestors in the kingdom of Christ!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

it predicts you will have descendants that are exact copies of your parents,

No it doesn't

the recognized fact that man has fallen in sin (man killed Christ when he needed not have

So... before the crucifiction people where innocent?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

its an INTELLIGENT design, how could i believe it just happened to be that way?

Its not an inteligent design. Human bodies are so prone to ridiculous failures that any engineer responsible for designing such a thing would be sacked. Would you like a list?

off the top of my head, the retinal blood vessels, the ligaments suporting viscera, the spine, the birth canal, putting the effluent ducts right in the middle of the procreation area, putting the water intake right next to the air intake...

theres HEAPS of points which work, well enough, in their way, but if you were designing a human from scratch are seriously sloppy

 

[USincognito]

^^Yes there are mishaps, like with anything and everything in life, but overall i believe the intelligence argument is a good and valid one.

I'm not referring to mishaps, but the systemic deisgn flaws that EPII was nice enough to list out.

As far as ID itself, the main advocates suffer from two opposite but equal problems. In not mentioning who the designer is, they leave open the door for everyone from Raelians to Sitchinites to co-opt their claims. By winking and nodding that it's God who is the designer, but rooting ID's premise in "we don't know therefore God" they engage in God of the Gaps which is bad theology.
(this second comment isn't directed at you per se Steelerbred, I'm just adding it on as part of the whole dialogue )

 

[Everlasting33]

^^ No i don't disagree with you enemy...there are mishaps of the human being but there is a considerable amount of intelligent design in a human being, spite the mishaps...!

"It is a fairly good philosophical argument, but it has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, which does not preclude intelligent design"

Your right. Philosophy was always more of my area than physics/science. I just wanted to add in my two cents!!!

 

[shernren]

The thing that is wrong with evolution as a theory is that it pheasibly predicts that you will have descendants that are exact copies of your parents, that over time copies will gain an evolutionary advantage (they can share learning more easily) and that because members of a species can do little more than mutate or react, the copies will simply be compelled to see this as a good thing or diverge against the telos of the evolutionary cycle and fall foul of those who do not.

When you add to these expectations the recognized fact that man has fallen in sin (man killed Christ when he needed not have) you have a cocktail for lawlessness and perpetual degradation (in my experience much abuse is levelled at others, even on these humble forums, on the basis of that evil theory). Were it not for the fact that Christ was Divinely conceived, evolution would postulate that the murder of Christ would simply happen again and again until the Holy Spirit rejected mankind. Being Divinely conceived, while knowing the nature of God, it is only thanks to God that we know that this will not happen.

Christ came once to save mankind from sin once and for all. No theory can predict otherwise; that evolution does predict this, asserting that the causes for life are perpetual, shows that evolution is patently wrong. Christ will not be born in the flesh again, He already has eternal life! Praise be to God that this simple fact points out the error in evolution that we may live without the slander against us and our ancestors in the kingdom of Christ!

This is not just horrifying biology, this is horrifying theology as well. Jesus was not the Son of God because of His DNA. In fact, none of us are fully reproducible from genetic structure alone; even though our genetic makeup is fully reproducible, our personhood (whether that is emergent or external ) can never be completely reproduced because of the vast environmental influence that goes into it.

Please revise your Christology.

 

[Psudopod]

I've never heard of "embedded history" until I came here. I don't know of anyone who believes that.

I'm not sure why God would embed history into something. Does this have Scriptural support?

NO, no scriptual support. However there is scientific support. We see history to the universe. Like supernova remenants, and all the geological evidence of events on the earth that happened before 6000 years ago.

If God created the earth 6000 years ago as a mature planet, why give it a history?

As I said previously:
It's one thing to create your first living thing as a mature adult capable of breeding. Its another to create him with 20 years of memory, an appendictomy scar and a strong dislike of bananas because they made him puke once.

Same goes for the universe and the earth.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

there are mishaps of the human being but there is a considerable amount of intelligent design in a human being, spite the mishaps...!

With the greatest respect gorgeous, I have difficulty believing that an inteligent designer would come up with the beautiful intricate simplicity of the Kreb's cycle, or the amazing function of the liver, and at the same time fail to realise that using the same design of spinal column for both bipeds and quadrupeds would cause serious problems. Chance mutation and chance provide an adequate explanation for the diversity we see today, given a long enough time frame and large enough populations, and ALSO explains why some of the design features implicit in animals seem to be jury rigging and co-opting of existing structures, in a "near enough is good enough" sort of way. Evolution only has to get a system adequate for passing on genes successfully to the next generation. I would expect an inteligent designer to be a bit more... well, intelligent, bluntly. Blind chance evolution provides a better explanation than a half-arsed designer who couldn't see that that whole detachable retina feature, or swim blader to lungs compromise was going to end up causing problems.

Simply put, if there is an inteligent designer, I want to know why the hardware isn't more user friendly?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Jesus was not the Son of God because of His DNA. In fact, none of us are fully reproducible from genetic structure alone; even though our genetic makeup is fully reproducible, our personhood (whether that is emergent or external ) can never be completely reproduced because of the vast environmental influence that goes into it.

Not to mention the idea of body/spirit Descartesian dualism... if the spirit resides somewhere else and is seperate from the body, nothing to say that Jesus DNA has to be anything special in the least, assuming that his spirit is God, rather than a human soul.

 

[bullman121]

Animals do evolve, humans don't evolve from anything though. So nothing unless you say humans evolved from something.

 

[Elduran]

Animals do evolve, humans don't evolve from anything though. So nothing unless you say humans evolved from something.

In other words you disagree with the theory of evolution?

 

[Tomk80]

Animals do evolve, humans don't evolve from anything though. So nothing unless you say humans evolved from something.

Humans are animals. Name one characteristic that all animals have but humans do not have. I bet you can't.

Humans evolved from their ancestors. Their ancestors were animals, just as humans are. Their ancestors also were apes, just as humans are.

 

[Sunrunner]

If evolution is wrong, the Bible must be wrong. The whole story of the Bible centers on the idea that Adam and Eve's disobedience brought sin and death into the world. However, if evolution is correct, that means organisms were dying before humans even existed (according to the Fossil Record). So how were things dying before death was even introduced?

That's the thing that's always bothered me about theistic evolution - it can save the question of origins, but it can't save the question of human nature, which is most definitely the central point of the Bible's message.

 

[Ryal Kane]

If evolution is wrong, the Bible must be wrong. The whole story of the Bible centers on the idea that Adam and Eve's disobedience brought sin and death into the world. However, if evolution is correct, that means organisms were dying before humans even existed (according to the Fossil Record). So how were things dying before death was even introduced?

No. It just means that a literalist interpretation of The Bible is incorrect. (I feel a little hypocritical arguing this sorry ) Creation in Genesis is a metaphor, an explanation for the nature of man and separation from God.

Almost all cultures have a creation myth in some form. Many have specific explanaitons of why people die.

That's the thing that's always bothered me about theistic evolution - it can save the question of origins, but it can't save the question of human nature, which is most definitely the central point of the Bible's message.

Ironically, I think it's the Creationists who rob Genesis of it's message by focusing on the points rather than the story. If you read The Tortise and The Hare to all about the speed of different animals, you're not going to get a lot out of it.

 

[shernren]

If evolution is wrong, the Bible must be wrong.

I like the sound of that. Freudian typo? ;D

The whole story of the Bible centers on the idea that Adam and Eve's disobedience brought sin and death into the world. However, if evolution is correct, that means organisms were dying before humans even existed (according to the Fossil Record). So how were things dying before death was even introduced?

Does the Bible say that Adam and Eve's disobedience brought sin and death into the world?

That's the thing that's always bothered me about theistic evolution - it can save the question of origins, but it can't save the question of human nature, which is most definitely the central point of the Bible's message.

Why does the question of human nature need saving? From what?

 

[Technocrat2010]

No, thanks. There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least.

You made it on the list!!! Grats!!!
http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1